Opinion
E068482
02-13-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE NOEL SAUCEDOCUEVAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1506549) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge. Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Jose Noel Saucedocuevas, of three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 1-3; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)); one count of the attempted, premeditated murder of a police officer (count 4; §§ 664, 187); and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle (count 5; § 246). In addition, the jury found true allegations defendant personally used a firearm in each of the offenses. (§§ 667, 12022.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 46 years four months to life.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. The convictions on counts 1 through 3 were for the lesser included offenses of the charged offenses of attempted murder of a police officer. --------
After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether sufficient evidence supports the conviction on the count 4 offense, attempted murder of Officer Edward Blevins. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2015, defendant came home from work in the afternoon and began drinking. Sometime between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. he went to a party with his son. Defendant removed his handgun, which he purchased illegally, from his truck. It had a fully loaded eight-round magazine; he chambered an additional round; defendant also brought additional ammunition with which to reload if necessary; he placed his gun in his waistband.
By the early morning hours of October 31, 2015, defendant had consumed between 10 and 14 beers, had been drinking straight out of a bottle of Vodka, and had snorted four or five lines of methamphetamine. Defendant testified he was not in his right mind.
At some point, his son went outside and started arguing with some men in the street. One of the men said he was going to call the police. Defendant knew the police were coming. He intervened and brought his son back to the party.
Nonetheless, his son went back outside and started arguing with the same people. At some point, defendant witnessed his son running while the other men were chasing him. Defendant ran after his son. When his son was out of view, defendant fired six to seven shots to garner his son's attention.
Defendant went back to the party with his son and saw a vehicle pull up; the window of the vehicle was rolled down. Defendant was unsure whether it was a police vehicle with police officers inside. He initially believed it might be someone related to the man with whom his son was fighting. However, he eventually realized it was a police vehicle. Defendant fired at the vehicle: "I . . . just shot because just to scare them away . . . ." "I shot towards the car, but I never aim[ed] at the car."
Defendant testified that after he "shot maybe three, four shots," he "probably" realized it was a police car. He shot one or two more times after he believed it to be a police car: "I just—I just shot . . . after I shot four or five times, three or four times or whatever it was, I don't know how many it was, I shot and I shot and I started running."
Defendant hid in some bushes; he saw a vehicle which he believed to be the police car park nearby. Defendant testified he then fired one or two shots into the air; he testified he never aimed. However, he also testified he pointed the gun toward the officers and fired. Defendant testified he completely unloaded his gun and stopped shooting only when he was out of ammunition.
The police started shooting back. Defendant was shot in the leg while standing. Defendant testified he shot at the police because "I just wanted them to shoot me." He wanted the officers to kill him because he was depressed and did not want to go to prison. Defendant "was just going through a lot of problems." Officers told defendant to come out with his hands up; defendant threw out his gun and complied.
Officer Jeff Maier testified that on October 31, 2015, around 4:30 a.m., he and his partner, Officer Jason Joseph, responded as backup to two other officers who had conducted a traffic stop. As they were standing on the curb, they heard gunfire and saw three individuals running across the street chased by two other individuals. They entered their vehicle and responded to the area to which the individuals were headed.
As they approached, Officer Maier saw and heard defendant fire two shots toward them. Officer Maier called in the shooting and told Officer Joseph to drive away from the area. Officer Joseph accelerated the car outside the "kill zone" to a market behind which they could take cover. They exited the vehicle with their guns drawn. After the shooting, they determined that the vehicle had been hit by a gunshot about six inches above Officer Maier's head. They found two shell casings in the area from which they saw the shooter fire at them.
Officer Jeffrey Adcox was working with Officer Edward Blevins when he heard a call over the radio regarding multiple gunshots fired in the vicinity of the traffic stop. Officers Adcox and Blevins could hear the shots from their location. Officer Maier broadcast a description of the shooter and his direction of travel. Officers Adcox and Blevin began looking for the suspect and saw defendant in the reported area.
They drove toward defendant, but lost sight of him; they exited the patrol vehicle and saw defendant dash behind some bushes. The officers exited the vehicle and told defendant to come out of the bushes three or four times. Officer Adcox testified he then saw defendant rise up and fire two to four gunshots in his direction. When asked if he was afraid he would get shot, Officet Adcox responded: "I thought I was going to take one to the chest or face." Officer Blevins testified he saw defendant pop up from behind the bush and saw a muzzle flash as the gun was pointed directly at him; he heard a gunshot. Officer Blevins thought he was going to be shot.
Officer Adcox fired four rounds back toward defendant. Officer Blevins fired five rounds at defendant. Officer Adcox kept hearing gunshots so he dove to the ground. Additional officers thereafter arrived.
The officers ordered defendant to throw out the gun and crawl out into the street. Defendant eventually threw out the gun and crawled out enough so that they could see his hands; they took him into custody. Defendant was taken by ambulance to the hospital. They recovered defendant's handgun. The People showed video from the dashboard camera of Officer Adcox's vehicle during which Officer Adcox narrated; the video showed the gunshots fired by defendant toward Officer Blevins at Officer Blevins's head or chest level.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MILLER
J.